Some how, some way, the American people woke up and realized our democracy is a shame, so we hold a new constitutional convention to rework some of this stuff. You are chosen as a representative from your state.

What amendments are you pushing, which ones are you fighting? What's your end goal? Keep money out of politics? Rescind the 2nd amendment? Create and equal rights amendment? Repeal the 21st amendment which brings the 18th amendment back into effect so that prohibition is back on the books? Tell me how we can Make America Great Again!


(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

1. Districting done by independent body.

2. Corporations are not people and only have rights enumerated in law. Those rights do not include the right to campaign for candidates.

3. Publically funded elections.

4. Election season only 3 month (not sure how that works in practice).

5. Supreme Court Justice get 18 year terms (eventually every president will get at least two appointments).

That's top of the dome.

I know people want to say term limits but I think they are highly overrated. Instead of a permanent class of legislators you get a permanent class of legislative staffs.






**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>1. Districting done by independent body.


Absolutely, couldn't agree more.


>2. Corporations are not people and only have rights enumerated
>in law. Those rights do not include the right to campaign for
>candidates.


100%

>3. Publically funded elections.

100%

>4. Election season only 3 month (not sure how that works in
>practice).

I don't know, it's a big country, I think 6 months would be ok.

>5. Supreme Court Justice get 18 year terms (eventually every
>president will get at least two appointments).

I think this is a good idea...however, I how do you think it's ok for justices, but not congress? I agree that too strict limits hinders the development of skilled political leaders, but no one should be serving as a congressperson half a century after they were first elected.

instead of two years. Might mean they don't have to campaign (or fundraise if that is still required) all the time.

This is a good read about what's wrong with congress

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a32838/congress-the-report-reforms-fixcongress-1114/

The thing that blows my mind is how little time congress people spend congressing together.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

almost always go in a with a congress that he/she helped sweep into power. Having it every 2 years is a check on the executive.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

country didn't we?

Oh the gun thing?

I would propose this:

You can buy and keep just about any guns currently legally available in your home. You want to prepare for the apocalypse or the race war, help yourself.

outside the home gets trickier and I haven't thought about it that much but I think if a person does enough training they should be able to carry something.

Also a person's right to carry does not give the right to intimidate and openly carrying is prima facie intimidation.

Also all guns can be tracked on a state level and real scrutiny as to who can buy guns.

I am just throwing out ideas on guns and so I am not married to any of this except a person has a right to defend their home and hunt.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

8 months to get to know the candidates, 2 months for the debates then vote.

i also think sat. should be the official day to vote for elections.

this tues. shit is stupid.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

should be permitted.

I think 8 months is too long.

I think a much shorter period but that period is intensely focused on elections. Like every night for the two weeks before the election are forums and debates that are on every channel.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i like seeing candidates faint, get caught in lies, respond to world events as they unfold...

2 weeks is some manchurian candidate shit.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>should be permitted.
>
>I think 8 months is too long.
>
>I think a much shorter period but that period is intensely
>focused on elections. Like every night for the two weeks
>before the election are forums and debates that are on every
>channel.


^^^^^

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

>3. Publically funded elections.

this would be tops for me, so much that i think between that and taking a metaphorical bulldozer to every lobbying firm on K street (make it a federal crime for any exchange of $ beyond regular incidentals amounts between any citizen & lawmaker? something along that line) would fix all the other shit

Repeal of Mandatory minimum drug sentencing
Create mandatory, federal police training guidelines.

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Foreign Corporations cannot own/control essential public spaces (like the companies that control/run water utilities, highway tolls or ports).

------------------
One Hundred.

___________________________________
"WASP of the year: even if he isn�t a WASP, Oakley. Sailing? Check. In a yacht club? Check. Used the term �summer� as a verb instead of a noun? You betcha!" -thejerseytornado

There's no excuse for 3% of gun owners to own over 130 million guns out of the 265 million currently in circulation in this country.

31th amendment ends discrimination of all kinds in hiring practices.

32nd amendment that mandates military spending cannot exceed 2.1 percent of GDP. It was at 3.3 last year and averaged 5.5 the last time I checked. This should free up money to towards infrastructure projects, schools, education, and healthcare.

33rd Amendment that taxes wealthy people that earn in excess of $20 million and more per year 40 percent of their income as well as closes loopholes. Move to China or Britain if you don't like it.

>There's no excuse for 3% of gun owners to own over 130
>million guns out of the 265 million currently in circulation
>in this country.


I'd rather have most the guns held by fewer people than more guns held by more people.



>
>31th amendment ends discrimination of all kinds in hiring
>practices.
>

Can I discriminate against dumber people? Lazy people? People without degrees?



>32nd amendment that mandates military spending cannot exceed
>2.1 percent of GDP. It was at 3.3 last year and averaged 5.5
>the last time I checked. This should free up money to towards
>infrastructure projects, schools, education, and healthcare.




>33rd Amendment that taxes wealthy people that earn in excess
>of $20 million and more per year 40 percent of their income as
>well as closes loopholes. Move to China or Britain if you
>don't like it.

I think they pay that now.

http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91243/New-Top-Income-Tax-Rates-of-434-and-509

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

try to come up with the best way to make sure the conventions arent dominated by some ruling class.

Also I'd get money out of politics.

>try to come up with the best way to make sure the conventions
>arent dominated by some ruling class.
>
>Also I'd get money out of politics.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

If we ban assault weapons, aren't I personally gaining from that rule?

If you vote to lower taxes, aren't you personally gaining from that rule?




>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

remember that map a couple of years ago that split the country up into regions. something like that. Where each is their own federated nation, with their included states. Split up reserves and debt by population. Give people five years to choose their citizenship. Put the option for Canada (by its states), central and south america to join. Call it the United Nations of America.

There would be a UNA governing body, but each member nation would have its own constitution and governance. Then you get the EU, figure out how to make an AU, and APAC work. UN folds into a contentintal convention.

Reasoning for this is to more localize governance while at the same time creating a more global governance structure to deal with broader 'planetary' issues. I think the US as it is, is too big and could be better managed in smaller regions. And the world today is really too divided to tackle the broader global issues effeciently.

No idea how it would work and not even foreseeable from today, but we just talking shit right?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

" US as it is, is too big and could be better managed in smaller regions"


What you just described is our federal system of united states.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I think the idea of a confederacy in America failed twice for a number of reasons, but the primary ones lack of a strong financial union and being built on slavery have largely been eliminated. I'd be willing to hear suggestions about realigning regional sovereignty in light of how new supranational polities like the EU and the AU do things.


(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

system. Just go back to the original idea of the federal system...without the whole slavery thing.



>I think the idea of a confederacy in America failed twice for
>a number of reasons, but the primary ones lack of a strong
>financial union and being built on slavery have largely been
>eliminated. I'd be willing to hear suggestions about
>realigning regional sovereignty in light of how new
>supranational polities like the EU and the AU do things.
>
>
>(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I prefer the idea of letting those regions determine their own governance than rejiggering how we define the existing one. It'd be great to rethink constitution etc without using the preexisting work as the map. Which isn't to say the outcome would be radically different. But imho governance should be reviewed by more than selected justices on a routine basis.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Middle America doesn't have much to offer
That's why many don't reside there now

****
pink toes: http://i.imgur.com/WN7DPL1

where people vote for parties and then parties appoint members via vote share

this would almost guarantee that the Senate and House of Reps would reflect the population demographics

blacks are 13% of the population but have 1-2 senators...
same with latinos

vote share would basically guarantee 25% of Congress would be black/brown

white folks in south africa made sure they would have representation in government and hence set up a system that is much fairer than ours

it would also guarantee more than the two party fuckery that we have today... partisan BS

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>where people vote for parties and then parties appoint
>members via vote share
>
>this would almost guarantee that the Senate and House of Reps
>would reflect the population demographics
>
>blacks are 13% of the population but have 1-2 senators...
>same with latinos
>
>vote share would basically guarantee 25% of Congress would be
>black/brown
>
>white folks in south africa made sure they would have
>representation in government and hence set up a system that is
>much fairer than ours
>
>it would also guarantee more than the two party fuckery that
>we have today... partisan BS
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

where voters vote for the party of their choice and whatever % of the vote the party receives they get to fill the senate/house of reps at that rate

its not racial per se.... but in America (an anagram for "I Am Race") most blacks would end up voting as a block (just like they do now for the dems) ...but new parties would be organized that would be more in lines with the needs of the various communities

also... no vote is wasted this way

again there are currently 3 black senators, 2 asian senators and 2 latino senators (and one of them is ted cruz smfh)

so basically 6% of the senate are people of color when we should actually have closer to 30%

but the two party system basically forces our vote to the two dem/rep parties who barely ever nominate folks who look like us

we would also have 30% of the House of Reps (which is way more diverse than Senate... but it would rise nonetheless)

21% of the House of Reps are black, latino, asian and/or indigenous

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

Now the parliamentary style stuff, that could work.

But the idea that people would vote in racial blocks. It's because congress have drawn lines to create black districts, where a certain population is guaranteed a black representative, you have a system where Black people are guaranteed a certain amount of representatives (which arguably may be too low), however, White Candidates don't have to try to appeal to black voters so they don't.

As long as black people are less than 15% of the population, I don't think we are better off with a congress that is guaranteed to be only 12% black but we only choose that black candidate but rather a better system for us would be a system where a lot of the white candidates need black votes and had to moderate their position to appeal to black people to stay in power.



>where voters vote for the party of their choice and whatever
>% of the vote the party receives they get to fill the
>senate/house of reps at that rate
>
>its not racial per se.... but in America (an anagram for "I Am
>Race") most blacks would end up voting as a block (just like
>they do now for the dems) ...but new parties would be
>organized that would be more in lines with the needs of the
>various communities
>
>also... no vote is wasted this way
>
>again there are currently 3 black senators, 2 asian senators
>and 2 latino senators (and one of them is ted cruz smfh)
>
>so basically 6% of the senate are people of color when we
>should actually have closer to 30%
>
>but the two party system basically forces our vote to the two
>dem/rep parties who barely ever nominate folks who look like
>us
>
>we would also have 30% of the House of Reps (which is way more
>diverse than Senate... but it would rise nonetheless)
>
>21% of the House of Reps are black, latino, asian and/or
>indigenous
>
>http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Now the parliamentary style stuff, that could work.
>
>But the idea that people would vote in racial blocks. It's
>because congress have drawn lines to create black districts,
>where a certain population is guaranteed a black
>representative, you have a system where Black people are
>guaranteed a certain amount of representatives (which arguably
>may be too low), however, White Candidates don't have to try
>to appeal to black voters so they don't.

i said people would end up MOSTLY voting as a block because most have very similar problems and political agendas. Whoever posted above me asked if it was racial based - i did not say that. the real power would be poor whites and poor blacks and poor latinos supporting a "working class party" but Americas racial politics makes that unlikely. in our current system the democrats take blacks for granted and offer little to nothing because they know we (1) vote as a block and (2) aint voting republican... so i think your whole point is moot


>As long as black people are less than 15% of the population, I
>don't think we are better off with a congress that is
>guaranteed to be only 12% black but we only choose that black
>candidate but rather a better system for us would be a system
>where a lot of the white candidates need black votes and had
>to moderate their position to appeal to black people to stay
>in power.

man if you think that blacks/latinos having 25-27% of the senators wouldnt affect change or isnt better than having 5%...

i dont know what to tell u

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>man if you think that blacks/latinos having 25-27% of the
>senators wouldnt affect change or isnt better than having
>5%...
>
>i dont know what to tell u
>


Why are blacks with majority population in areas still voting en masse for white candidates vs black candidates?

Why don't we have more black senators from southern states where blacks make up big chunk of populations?


How many blacks had to be begged and pleaded with to vote for obama?
Remember John Lewis wasn't on board with Obama until his check cleared.

****
pink toes: http://i.imgur.com/WN7DPL1

well...

on the Senate side...

there's only 2 Senate seats per state and blacks are no more than 37% (Mississippi) in any of them (these are statewide elections and the dems/reps hardly ever offer up a black candidate)

we are over 50% in DC... but guess what - no senators. thats why the license places say taxation without representation

on the House of Reps side... i believe we have 46 out 435 which is real close to what it should be (its almost 11%)... because those arent statewide elections (voting districts)

we need those Senate seats!

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

the real power would be poor whites and
>poor blacks and poor latinos supporting a "working class
>party" but Americas racial politics makes that unlikely. in
>our current system the democrats take blacks for granted and
>offer little to nothing because they know we (1) vote as a
>block and (2) aint voting republican... so i think your whole
>point is moot


How would you get a candidate to unite black people and white people against a common enemy? You do that by giving a candidate white and black people in their district and having to need both groups votes to win.

Instead you have districts in which the white candidate has only white constituents and can get away with racist shit that appeals to that white base.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it would happen already...

poor whites, blacks and latinos could elect anyone they wanted now

but you are ignoring basic american realities i.e. the poor whites you are talking about support Trump... while basically NO blacks do. and what that comes down to is...poor uneducated whites basically hate black people

but u think there is some magic wand candidate who can come along and make poor whites "see the way"...when these folks sit out here justifying innocent black people being murdered on a weekly basis... support locking black people up forever for what they do everyday etc

keep sippin that kool aid though

i'd rather have 25% of the senate thank you...

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

OKplayer.


You say multi-party system but that's not what you are describing with guaranteed racial representation. That can only be achieved by, well, guaranteeing racial representation.

You also kind of missing the whole Bernie Sanders appeal to poor white candidates and black candidates. Also Bill Clinton to a certain extent.


It's also kind of ironic where you dismiss the idea of a black and white caucus united around economic themes (which btw, Bernie Sanders proved was possible) but then you think that all the non-white grounds would bond together in a non-white coalition to challenge white rule.

You assume folks put racial identity above their other identity and always vote along racial lines. Not even black people do that. Why you think Asian and Black people are going to start doing that?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

do you know who bernies supporters are?

they are not poor and uneducated

you are misinformed...

i stated very clearly what i'm talking about

people vote for parties...would those parties have alot of congruence among racial groups... yes very much so...especially in the beginning

the senate holds the power... blacks and latinos dont have enough population anywhere to elect candidates that look like them (just like whites in south africa)

again i'll take representation over a dream and believing white people gonna do the right thing

hasnt worked out well for us these these past 240 years

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

That's the profile of a Trump supporter. Of course the difference between ardent Trump Supporters and Sanders Supporters was Social Conservatism and Racism.

But that doesn't negate the fact that it's possible to get black people and poor white people to vote for the same candidate, Bill Clinton did it. There is historical precedent.

But you have some truly fairy tale system that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Look at what you wrote.


>i stated very clearly what i'm talking about
>
>people vote for parties...would those parties have alot of
>congruence among racial groups... yes very much
>so...especially in the beginning


A multi-party system. I get that, that would be awesome. No argument there. You seem to think everyone would vote along racial lines, I doubt it. There would ba a black caucus for sure, but there would be black people who don't join it, just like there is now.

So I am wondering how does that translate to POCs getting 30 Senators? Because....

>the senate holds the power... blacks and latinos dont have
>enough population anywhere to elect candidates that look like
>them (just like whites in south africa)

If we don't have the numbers as you correctly point out, how do we get 12 senators? How do we get the non-white coalition of 30 Senators....unless there is this fairy-tale racial election.

Fact of the matter is that this country looks like this racially

http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/

South Africa don't look like that (unless the blue dots represents black people I guess maybe). So what works in South African wouldn't necessarily work here.


Here there currently can't be a purely racial based power source that rivals the white power based because there are just too many white people.

In the current integrated US states, you need white Allies to address the systematic problems in our society.

That's all.

But keep dreaming.


>
>again i'll take representation over a dream and believing
>white people gonna do the right thing
>
>hasnt worked out well for us these these past 240 years


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

reading is not your strong suit

blacks are 13%...latinos are another 14%...i also added asians in. its all in the OG post

that gets us in the neighborhood of 30%

blacks almost all vote democrat

youre saying my "fairy tale idea" or whatever but the fact that it already exists somewhere in tandem with the fact america's history betrays you implies youre the one with his head in the sand

do i think white america would go for it? of course not... it would be giving up alot of political power but the whole post is "what would you do at a constitutional convention"

smfh

niggers. no wonder we cant get nothing done... always think white people ice is colder. we need to be in coalition with them for everything even in a post that is fantasy based. you really think there will be another constitutional convention?

lol

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

Voter. Didn't take much to bring that self-hate out of you. SMH.


You also missed my point regarding 30%. I asked how to get the 30% POCs to vote as a unified block along racial lines? What is the precedent for that you speak of?


Actually, don't answer that question. Should spend more time thinking about what motivates the dude with the degree in africana studies and studied with baraka...

>
>niggers. no wonder we cant get nothing done... always think
>white people ice is colder...

This ain't about me. Why you feel that way about your own people? With at hard -gger too. SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

but there are black people and there are niggers

what did homey say in 12 years a slave - "niggas don't have no stomach for a fight"

anyways.....

your question was already answered but you have your head so far up your ass and so intent on reading for response as opposed to understanding i guess u missed it

my very first post and idea for the constitutional convention was to introduce a voting system in which people vote for parties instead of people and then whatever % of the vote each party receives becomes the amount of reps (% wise) that is sent to the legislature

that means there would probably end up being MANY parties (look at how many parties Britain has for instance and again south africa)

could blacks have multiple parties? of course.

us being outnumbered wouldn't matter because even if (1) of the black parties only received 1% of the vote they would still get to send 1 member to the senate (1/100) and 4.35 to the house of reps

we wouldn't need a coalition. everyone's vote would count and so-called minorities would have representation at a rate that would mirror the country's demographics

is it clearer now?

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

white person or a black person who was raised by or among white people.

>your question was already answered but you have your head so
>far up your ass and so intent on reading for response as
>opposed to understanding i guess u missed it
>
>my very first post and idea for the constitutional convention
>was to introduce a voting system in which people vote for
>parties instead of people and then whatever % of the vote each
>party receives becomes the amount of reps (% wise) that is
>sent to the legislature
>
>that means there would probably end up being MANY parties
>(look at how many parties Britain has for instance and again
>south africa)
>
>could blacks have multiple parties? of course.
>
>us being outnumbered wouldn't matter because even if (1) of
>the black parties only received 1% of the vote they would
>still get to send 1 member to the senate (1/100) and 4.35 to
>the house of reps
>
>we wouldn't need a coalition. everyone's vote would count and
>so-called minorities would have representation at a rate that
>would mirror the country's demographics
>
>is it clearer now?


You went from POCs would have 30 seats in the Senate to it would be a good system if black people end up with 1 seat in the senate to 4 seats in the house, which is dramatically less than we have now. LOL.


Alright man. I am good on this convo. I'll give you the last word if that will make you happy. Say your last peace that you dying to say and we can both move on.


BTW, the word "Nigger" is a word of hate. Hard to believe Mr. Africana studied with Baraka would try to dissociate the word from hate.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

you really can't read

i said their would be many parties

"even if ONE of the parties only garnered 1%" they would end up with 1 senator"

smfh. that was in response to your how we would need a coalition foolishness

u lack serious reading comprehension

plus u keep moving goal posts

sucka nigga nigga nigga

i put the sucka in the front for the ones that can't read

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

.

****
pink toes: http://i.imgur.com/WN7DPL1

>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

ass crocodiles out of the water.

------------------
One Hundred.

But I am as scared of the young ones as the old ones.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"